In an inexplicable loss for House Speaker John Boehner, a substantial portion of his caucus abandoned him on a vote to limit funding for the US involvement in the NATO mission in Libya. The House was expected to pass the funding limitation today, which would have been a rebuke to the President’s warmaking powers. Instead, the measure failed by a count of 180-238, with 89 Republicans rejecting the resolution. This included a strange mix of pro-war conservatives but also anti-war votes like Ron Paul and Walter Jones, who perhaps felt that the exemptions for intelligence and reconnaissance, among other actions, gave up too much to the Administration. Even Tea Party favorites like Tom McClintock and Michele Bachmann voted No.

Democrats did not whip the vote on defunding, but they still voted against it for the most part. 36 Democrats voted to defund.

Earlier in the day, the House also rejected a limited authorization for the mission that would have banned ground troops, by a count of 123-295. 70 Democrats voted against authorization, along with all but 8 Republicans.

I’m at a loss to explain why Boehner would hold this vote if he didn’t have the numbers to carry it. Now Congress looks impotent and useless, and the story becomes about vote-counting instead of war powers. The Senate wasn’t going to pass a defunding bill anyway, but now they really have no pressure to do so. And while Congress struggles to determine its role in Libya, the President will continue to authorize military involvement. More importantly, the doctrine that a President can unilaterally authorize war and go around Congress through claims that engagement that puts no American lives at risk does not constitute “hostilities” goes unchecked. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future, especially given the trajectory of reliance on drones and other robots and shadow wars.

I will entertain the notion that the House Speaker is fine with all that, and put up a vote on defunding that he knew would fail, to remove consequences from the executive in the future. It’s certainly a possibility.

Meanwhile, just as these votes ended, Foreign Policy magazine catches a US Admiral admitting that NATO is trying to kill Gadhafi. Might have been good information before the vote.

II’m at a loss to explain why Boehner would hold this vote if he didn’t have the numbers to carry it. Now Congress looks impotent and useless, and the story becomes about vote-counting instead of war powers.

Not everybody thinks a tight hold on congress is a good thing. Now the story isn’t about corrupt back room party wheeling and dealing and enforcement. I think its a heck of a lot more respectable and principled to let it go forward and record the vote.

Statement on HR 2278, a bill to limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.

Mr. Speaker I rise to oppose this legislation, which masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to HR 2278, the US military cannot be involved in NATO’s actions in Libya, with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first time the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya. Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.

That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the president a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill fails, the entirety of what the president is doing in Libya would remain illegal.

Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to allow US force against Libya any such force is illegal, meaning the expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about our Constitutional obligations and authority.